Author Topic: "The Hill" new discussion rendezvous (pundits.thehill.com)-non partisan  (Read 1211 times)

Offline joane

  • NEClimbs Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
I  underscored some  ideas that interested me especially in thinking about  posting on any part of the web. I  asked myself  "why do posters usually use  nicknames of their own creation ?"  why not post and answer  posts  as if it were  US Post office mail addresses or your  telephone  number? 
The net can be such a great resource to get together, rendezvous  on  various  ideas and experiences and I guess   for those  baseball fans,  among us, to "play ball". After all , if the pitcher never throws  a ball to bat,  the umpire   never has the opportunity to  call it. It's better to get involved and participate. Is there any length of time for people to  watch and wait in baseball if say, some pitcher decides never to throw a ball, then what? Do we  wait until the audience boos and goes home?  So while I  think great caution is needed to use the net and forums like this,  to consider how other people might  want to use it,  it can certainly be a  fun  and  positive resource  to enjoy life  with, learn and share experiences!

From  The Hill Punidts discussion forum-non partisan resource of "The Hill"  home page
start quote-
January 3, 2007
To My Fellow Democrats: It,s Time To Stop The Politics of Personal Destruction (Lanny Davis)
@ 2:33 pm
For more than 30 years this country has developed a habitual scandal culture that feeds on  gotcha politics and aims not at defeating the political opposition but destroying it - not at saying political adversaries are right or wrong but at declaring them to be good or evil. The result is more and more Americans, fed up and part of a growing angry center, are saying, to borrow Howard Beale,s line in Network¸ we are mad as Hell and we,re not going to take it anymore.

The bitter legacy of the 1960s and Watergate materialized over the last three decades of the twentieth century into a scandal machine that has progressively generated a level of viciousness and personal destructive power unlike anything seen in America before. And the hypocrisy is shared by the left and the right, by Democrats as well as Republicans. All partisans on both sides, if we can be honest with each other for just a moment, share this much in common: sanctimony when it is the other guy getting the heat, outrage when it is your guy getting the heat; and enough hypocrisy to spread around the evenly across the spectrum in both parties.

There are no clean hands here, certainly not mine.

Since the 1970s, the scandal machine has been truly different, not just in degree but in kind. The Democrats invented the constitutional monster, the Independent Counsel, and then in the 1980s proceeded to use and misuse it to investigate the Reagan and Bush Administrations and too often to allow the criminalization of political differences. Then in the 1990s, it was  gotcha time, as the Republicans took over both houses of Congress and proceeded to do the same thing against the Clinton Administration.

Not that there wasn,t legitimate cause at times for investigations or criminal conduct at times. But the difference, especially in the 1990s, was the combined power of four new elements of scandal machinery that had never existed all at once before: the invention of the 24/7 cable news cycle; the power of the Internet and the misinformation echo chamber of Google and other search engines; the independent counsel, with unlimited budget and unaccountable power in search of a crime; and the final evolution of hyper-partisanship and vitriol leading voices of hate and food fight politics to dominate the body politic. Unfortunately, with the dawn of the twenty-first century, these weapons of mass political destruction, these haters and food fighters on the left and the right seeking the next cycle of  gotcha, did not stop after 9/11, but have continued through the Bush years and up to the present....continued end quote


Mr. Davis, former special counsel to President Clinton between 1996-98, is the author of "Scandal: How 'Gotcha' Politics Is Destroying America," forthcoming from Palgrave.

Tomcat

  • Guest
Re: "The Hill" new discussion rendezvous (pundits.thehill.com)-non partisan
« Reply #1 on: January 05, 2007, 07:59:15 AM »
I would agree that much of the fabric of our society is slowly being destroyed by partisanship.The hate displayed on internet sites such as this one being just a part of it.Supertopo and RC are overrun by conspiracy theorists.The media portrays each state as red or blue,but in reality,many states,like New Hampshire are purple,an almost 50/50 mix.It never ceases to amaze me how much love flows for people on the other side of the world who would cut your throat in a minute,who's religion dictates that they kill you because you don't adhere to their beliefs,while people relentlessly bash the Christian guy down the street the gets up in the middle of the night to put out your house fire.A guy who's only crime is that he voted for a different dismal candidate than the dismal candidate you voted for.

What we need is a centrist party,but the media and politicians push us ever further apart.Every conservative is now a neocon evangelist.

And,more than any other thing,it is that rift that makes us weaker in the world,and we will pay dearly for it.We would be finished in Iraq right now if we displayed half the unity and determination we did in the second world war.

Offline Jim_Ewing

  • NEClimbs Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 369
Re: "The Hill" new discussion rendezvous (pundits.thehill.com)-non partisan
« Reply #2 on: January 05, 2007, 09:31:16 AM »
It never ceases to amaze me how much love flows for people on the other side of the world who would cut your throat in a minute,who's religion dictates that they kill you because you don't adhere to their beliefs,while people relentlessly bash the Christian guy down the street the gets up in the middle of the night to put out your house fire.

I was in total agreement with you until you got to this bit.  Who are you saying this "love" is flowing from?  Isn't that statement an example of the exact type of thinking you are decrying in the opening of your post? Could it also be a Christian guy that is doing the bashing of the Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu guy that gets up in the middle of the night to put out the fire at your house.

The first part of your post seems to be speaking entirely from the middle but the rest is obviously coming from a biased place somewhere to the right.

Offline Admin Al

  • NEClimbs Administrator
  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 8101
  • Climb 'till your forearms turn to jelly!
    • NEClimbs
Re: "The Hill" new discussion rendezvous (pundits.thehill.com)-non partisan
« Reply #3 on: January 05, 2007, 10:14:05 AM »
The hate displayed on internet sites such as this one being just a part of it.

my my...
Al Hospers
____________________________________
my music
 http://www.soundsclever.com

mistymountains

  • Guest
Re: "The Hill" new discussion rendezvous (pundits.thehill.com)-non partisan
« Reply #4 on: January 05, 2007, 11:38:07 AM »
"not at saying political adversaries are right or wrong but at declaring them to be good or evil. "

read political history, this is nothing new

"the power of the Internet and the misinformation echo chamber of Google and other search engines;"

what does this mean? blaming the internet for the fact most people always have been, always will be, and want to be sheep that are incapable of independent thought because it questions what our "leaders" tell us

"The hate displayed on internet sites such as this one being just a part of it.Supertopo and RC are overrun by conspiracy theorists."

just because you are not paranoid does not mean people are not out to get you

Tomcat

  • Guest
Re: "The Hill" new discussion rendezvous (pundits.thehill.com)-non partisan
« Reply #5 on: January 06, 2007, 09:09:29 AM »
My apologies AdminAl, the level of hate here is negligible,I was really thinking about joane's original post,the internet as a whole, and what I see everyday on Supertopo.

Misty's post though is what I see a lot of.The endless representation that if you do not agree with my political position,you are a sheep incapable of thinking for yourself.And a lecture to study history,as if it's not obvious that we all have and do look at history.Or to put it another way Misty,you say we have always been divided this way,politically,and I say look at the things we accomplished when we were not.

So Jim critisizes what I posted because he feels that a piece of it came from a biased place somewhere to the right.But he is OK posting"Granted the NAMBLA is a rather loathsome group,but under the constitution they have the right to exist as do several other despicable institutions such as the GOP."

And that's a place near the center?

mistymountains

  • Guest
Re: "The Hill" new discussion rendezvous (pundits.thehill.com)-non partisan
« Reply #6 on: January 06, 2007, 09:49:30 AM »
sorry, I have the flu and it is 60degrees in Jan >:(  , but, if you believe everything you read on the inetrnet and act on it then you are indeed not thinking

statements like "the power of the Internet and the misinformation echo chamber of Google and other search engines" reeks of the arguements used to rationalize book burning

and from what I have read, the hate in politics we see now is nothing compared to the past, both parties like to exaggerate and mold reality to fit their own needs

its funny a democrat wrote this and not a republican, i wonder if ther dems held majority rule the past few years if he would have written it??? 


Offline Jim_Ewing

  • NEClimbs Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 369
Re: "The Hill" new discussion rendezvous (pundits.thehill.com)-non partisan
« Reply #7 on: January 06, 2007, 06:53:57 PM »

So Jim critisizes what I posted because he feels that a piece of it came from a biased place somewhere to the right.But he is OK posting"Granted the NAMBLA is a rather loathsome group,but under the constitution they have the right to exist as do several other despicable institutions such as the GOP."

And that's a place near the center?

Where in my post, in this thread, did I make criticism of the GOP?  Yes you quoted me correctly but from another thread of an entirely different subject.  My statement about the GOP from that other thread was actually an attempt at tongue and cheek humor, never the less.  For the record I hate the GOP far less than I hate the NAMBLA.  Your attempts to align me with the NAMBLA shows your palpable desperation. <grin>

I think it's pretty widely accepted that most Christians are to the right of center.  Do not interpret that as saying Christians are extreme right wingers, I don't believe that to be the case nor do I hate them as I'm sure you are about to accuse.  In your post you paint a hypothetical picture of a Christian coming to the rescue of someone who hates him.  I think it's pretty fair to say that picture is slanted as you presented it.
You also failed to address the "love flows" question.  If the hypothetical fire fighter is indeed a Christian then isn't he one from which the love should be flowing?  Read Matthew 5:38-44.
Whatever the case, Tom, I think you are painting with a pretty broad brush on a canvas that is fairly slanted.  This is not an accusation or condemnation, just how it looks from my side of the picture.

Oh yeah, I never said I was in the center.  No doubt about it I am to the left but that doesn't mean I hate the right or the center.

Offline old_school

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 2511
  • "Climb Now, Work Later."
Re: "The Hill" new discussion rendezvous (pundits.thehill.com)-non partisan
« Reply #8 on: January 08, 2007, 11:20:42 AM »
What we need is a centrist party,but the media and politicians push us ever further apart.Every conservative is now a neocon evangelist.

What we need is to throw organized religions out the window! And above all else...keep them the F*$k out of politics!

And,more than any other thing,it is that rift that makes us weaker in the world,and we will pay dearly for it.We would be finished in Iraq right now if we displayed half the unity and determination we did in the second world war.

Finished what? The terms of engagement have changed 6 times from WMD's to securing Bahgdad...clearly the administration (Bush) had an agenda and pushed it through unilaterally, without the concent of the people of this country and before the UN had an opportunity to counter or support. It is very hard to rally around an ambiguous...amorphic....unclear engagement (unlike WWII / clear goal / commom enemy). It is still unclear what it was and is that we are trying to accomplish iin Iraq? Could anyone out there help me out on this one....because I sure would like to know! Four going on 5 years of "Shock and Awe" is getting a little old...

2 more years of poor judgement and lack of vision and leadership is discouraging... :-\
« Last Edit: January 08, 2007, 11:23:14 AM by old_school »
"Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you will be a mile away from them and you will have their shoes."